Could the CSA defeat Mexico.

Not to mention, the CSA would need a Casus Belli. What would it possibly be? They have land, we want it? I guess they can just simply declare war...good luck being trusted by other countries because it would now be super easy for any nation to justify material aid to Mexico....like say the USA.

Well, that's why I came down pretty hard on the side of "Why would they do that?"

I'm just not sure there'd be enough interest in trying to push west past Texas... of course, the scenario I discussed upthread speculated on a much more successful battle of Glorietta Pass for the South, and one in which the CSA controlled everything east and south of the Colorado River by the time of an armistice. I guess I could see some real justification for "the gulf of California is within spitting distance, we just need a few more miles of territory and we'll have that pacific port," in that scenario.

As far as casus belli goes, many countries of the 19th century were rather spotty on it. Anything from a "Columbus,NM" style raid, to "protecting our citizens down there," to "defaulted loans," to even a false flag are all justifications that worked in that day and age. But you're point is well taken.
 
Even if the CSA wins in 1863, they have some significant financial problems - they owe a lot of money already and that will need to be paid back. If they don't invest much in industry they will rapidly be in big trouble as they will have difficulty competing with Imperial cotton, and they will need to be purchasing a lot of manufactured goods from the UK. The USA might sell to them but I expect only on a cash basis or with significant interest.
 
Even if the CSA wins in 1863, they have some significant financial problems - they owe a lot of money already and that will need to be paid back. If they don't invest much in industry they will rapidly be in big trouble as they will have difficulty competing with Imperial cotton, and they will need to be purchasing a lot of manufactured goods from the UK. The USA might sell to them but I expect only on a cash basis or with significant interest.

The cash basis part is especially important, considering that even if there is no government involvement the Southern planters, by actions of the Rebel leadership during the war, had defaulted on their outstanding debts to Northern factors and so will have a credit rating of essentially zero. (It wasen't that long after the war's beginning that they essentially converted debts to Northerners into bonds in an effort to raise cash without expense). And given the cultural penchant of the antibellium southern planter for running up debts... you could very well end up seeing some British gunboat diplomacy involved if the problem gets too big.
 
The question is, dose the CSA want to have a two front war? You piss off both the Union and Mexico and if they still do not have France and the British on their side because of the slavery thing, and there would be a real possibility of that happening, the South would be screwed in so many, many different ways. Hell I think them going expansionist would upset the Europeans too much as well.
 
Last edited:
Should also be remembered that the boll weevil is coming and not too far off.
And no support from the North means the economic hardship lasts longer, as well as the probability that Europe still not be doing that much with them due to slavery, yeah great Depression levels of unemployment for decades.
 
Should also be remembered that the boll weevil is coming and not too far off.
Well, unless I'm a time traveling Jeff Davis, I'd not want to anticipate the boll weevil in a TL. Let the chips fall where they might. :rolleyes:

If cotton prices remain high between the time of the CSA victory and their historical crash around 1876, the CSA could make a big dent in their foreign debt. All this economic talk makes me want to do a timeline, but to paraphrase the Princess Bride, ... but I've got my timeline's 500th post to write, my laundry to wash, my antagonist to kill and Guilder to frame for it; I'm swamped.:biggrin:
 
I often see it said the Confederacy would have economic or diplomatic issues (including covert or overt military action) with this or that nation, because of said nation’s revulsion towards slavery. Is there any OTL reason to believe this? Did Brazil or antebellum America experience analogous measures?
 
If cotton prices remain high between the time of the CSA victory and their historical crash around 1876, the CSA could make a big dent in their foreign debt. All this economic talk makes me want to do a timeline, but to paraphrase the Princess Bride, ... but I've got my timeline's 500th post to write, my laundry to wash, my antagonist to kill and Guilder to frame for it; I'm swamped.
Thing is that that means you have to have some solid cotton taxes, which the CSA was historically unwilling to adopt. And that was while in an existential war.
 
I often see it said the Confederacy would have economic or diplomatic issues (including covert or overt military action) with this or that nation, because of said nation’s revulsion towards slavery. Is there any OTL reason to believe this? Did Brazil or antebellum America experience analogous measures?

I disagree on this point, at least in terms of offical government action. Though, I imagine the British government (seeing how it would help commerce within the Empire, benefiting British firms ect.) woulden't exactly oppose private efforts to boycott "Foreign, slave-blood soaked textiles" in preferance for Indian or Egyptian cotton. And depending on the North to absorb exports would be a political problem in case tensions between the two nations boiled over, since it would lop off your main revenue source in one fell swoop (Especially given the general Northern preference for tariffs... a trade war is one the Dixie can't win). We may even see Northern factories playing up a similar patriotic (or at least anti-Rebel) advertising campaign, which could lead by a knock-on effect to boosting demand for wool (Thus encouraging sheep husbandry in the Midwest) or perhaps co-operating with landowners in the Caribbean to produce sea-cotton.
 
I often see it said the Confederacy would have economic or diplomatic issues (including covert or overt military action) with this or that nation, because of said nation’s revulsion towards slavery. Is there any OTL reason to believe this? Did Brazil or antebellum America experience analogous measures?
Oh absolutely, in olt it was why France and Britain did not support the South even though they knew it would have helped them in the long run. Their publics where so opposed to it that it would have caused riots to back the South. The leadership knew this, its why the idea of the South winning is nearly Asbs no one liked them if they kept slavery and if they got rid of it what was the point of all those deaths?
 
Thing is that that means you have to have some solid cotton taxes, which the CSA was historically unwilling to adopt. And that was while in an existential war.
While it is true the South collected negligible taxes on exports, that was largely due to their idiotic trade policy on cotton and later on the union blockade. The confederate congress passed both import tariffs and export taxes. So, the political will was there to tax imports and exports. I think that a CSA victory would result in their congress holding onto those taxes for at least a few years. Now, it's an open question about how much revenue such taxes would raise. It's possible the CSA could raise $40 to $60 million a year in revenue from that. I wouldn't put it past Davis or a successor to raise taxes on the exports even higher. Europe was able to consume a lot more cotton than what Egypt or India could produce at that time IIRC, and a higher net cost can be envisioned. Sure, it's a short term solution but one I think the South would use until global prices crash in the mid 1870s.

If anyone has a link to sources on Egypt and Indian cotton productions in the 1870s I'd be interested. My searches didn't bring up much useful data.

Something else to keep in mind is most of us are discounting the effects of butterflies. We're drawing conclusions based upon data points and commonly held views. THe real value of a timeline is to explore how butterflies will affect the new world. So, who's going to do that TL? :biggrin:
 

Deleted member 67076

Wouldn't the Confederates have the advantage of better technology, esp. weapons? That's why I guess they'd have an advantage against Mexico. Yes, the US and other states might sell the Mexicans weapons too - but how would the Mexicans pay?
Porfirio bought modern weaponry like machine guns and bolt action rifles as part of his strategy for curbing banditry and reducing the size of the Mexican army to a more manageble limit.

Come 1880 and the country is entering a silver boom that would drastically strengthen its foreign reserves- we forget that this is the time period where the Peso was worth 4 dollars.
 
Militarily yes, but the Confederacy would face a well funded insurgency that would drain Confederate resources for decades. They could not afford to do that and would eventually have to withdraw. With no unified military State governors would start to withdraw their state's units, not caring what the government in Richmond thought about it.
 
Porfirio bought modern weaponry like machine guns and bolt action rifles as part of his strategy for curbing banditry and reducing the size of the Mexican army to a more manageble limit.

Come 1880 and the country is entering a silver boom that would drastically strengthen its foreign reserves- we forget that this is the time period where the Peso was worth 4 dollars.
Mexico was also developing its own line of bolt action rifles beginning in the 1890's. A rather sophisticated rifle was finally produced in 1908, one of the first self loading rifles, it was called the Mondragon M1908 Rifle. The revolution stifled full production but the rifle was ultimately used by Germany in WWI (a few thousand of them). In the 1890's Mexico also developed an artillery gun, the Saint-Chamond Mondragon 75mm gun. The gun itself found itself on French tanks in WWI as well as used by Israel during its war for independence. These were built by European companies but designed by Manuel Mondragon, one of Diaz's lackeys. A more defense concerned Diaz would definitely throw more support to Mondragon and others like him.

The revolutionaries had their own weapons designers too. Pancho Villa had Rafael Mendoza who modified and made some makeshift weapons for Pancho Villa's forces. Eventually in the 1930's he was making light machine guns for Mexico. In the later half of the 1910's Mexico was also developing its own aeroplane engines and propeller designs as well as a few planes by the 1920's it had a few light airplane designs. But they never entered production and Mexico opted out to continue buying foreign planes (thus begins a long era of neglecting the development of an air force). Mexico also developed a tank by 1917 but never produced it, and experimented with some armored cars (With the same fate of its tank). I believe the tank was developed by the revolutionaries.

Mexico wasn't alien to technological advances of its own, and given the proper incentive (expansionist slaver CSA) it would focus on its research and development of weapons which was largely neglected in OTL. Now to be honest, there were some really good reasons why Mexico "neglected" research and development that would have to be butterflied away. A Diaz concerned with the CSA and conciliatory towards factions desiring democratic elections could do the trick.
 
Mexico wasn't alien to technological advances of its own, and given the proper incentive (expansionist slaver CSA) it would focus on its research and development of weapons which was largely neglected in OTL. Now to be honest, there were some really good reasons why Mexico "neglected" research and development that would have to be butterflied away. A Diaz concerned with the CSA and conciliatory towards factions desiring democratic elections could do the trick.
As will do an USA government throwing at them wads of cash to having them stable and as allies against the CSA
 
Last edited:
Honestly I think mexico would win this.

Slavery means your enemy gets a built in, omipresent, essentalyfree spy network.

It means you have a ready made insurgent group just waiting for guns and firearms to use for their liberation with that kind of built in weakness Mexico already has an edge. Then you have a potential ally to the north of your enemy who also wants to take them down which means you can create a two front war pretty eaisly.

Add in problems with industrialization, infostructor, economic issues and I think mexico wins this.
 
Add in problems with industrialization, infostructor, economic issues and I think mexico wins this.

It's a good thing Mexico didn't have any issues with industrialization, infrastructure, economic issues or a heavily repressive debt peonage system at that time. :rolleyes:
 
It's a good thing Mexico didn't have any issues with industrialization, infrastructure, economic issues or a heavily repressive debt peonage system at that time. :rolleyes:


Actually, the Porfiriato period (IE; the late 1800's) was actually one of the best periods in Mexico in terms of governmental organization and economic prosperity... though weather or not you get that ITTL is highly debatable if Emperor Maximilian and his feudal-paternalistic minded supporters stay in power. The knock on effects to Mexican development have just as much impact on a war in this period as the nature of the CSA, so I think we need to spend some time discussing Mexico.
 
Actually, the Porfiriato period (IE; the late 1800's) was actually one of the best periods in Mexico in terms of governmental organization and economic prosperity... though weather or not you get that ITTL is highly debatable if Emperor Maximilian and his feudal-paternalistic minded supporters stay in power. The knock on effects to Mexican development have just as much impact on a war in this period as the nature of the CSA, so I think we need to spend some time discussing Mexico.
True. I'm more familiar with the Maximilian and Juarez period than the Porfiriato period. But I'm most familiar with the Centralist period of the 1820s to 1840s. But that's mostly because it intersects so closely with my interests in Texas history.

That's why its usually more constructive to give feedback on a timeline rather than the phallus measuring that goes on in these kind of threads. The whole "my view of the world at that time is better than yours" is about what most of the back and forth amounts to. I'd be happy to follow a timeline that was about the OP, where the development from the POD could look at all the relevant players.
 
Top